[c-nsp] BGP quandry

[Justin Shore]

Justin Shore wrote:
> Core:
....
> !
>  address-family vpnv4
>  neighbor ibgp-peer send-community extended
>  neighbor 10.64.0.34 activate
>  exit-address-family
> 
> I added the last activate for grins but it didn't help.  peer-groups are 
> auto-activated which is why it's not explicitly spelled out in the vpn4 
> statement.
> 
> DC:
....
>  neighbor 10.64.0.20 peer-group ibgp-peer
>  neighbor 10.64.0.20 description iBGP to 7613-2.clr (65001)
> !
>  address-family vpnv4
>   neighbor ibgp-peer send-community extended
>  exit-address-family

So I did a little more playing around and found that if I added an vpnv4 
activate on the DC #2 router for core #2's IP I got my vpnv4 routes.  I 
only got those connected to core #2 though.  I had to add another 
activate for core #1.  I'm assuming that core #2 sent those BGP routes 
that it learned via iBGP from core #1 to DC #2 because of the RR config. 
  Since I'm eliminating the iBGP RR config I have to complete the full 
mesh to get the full set of routes.  That makes sense.

One thing that doesn't make sense at this point is why the ibgp-peer 
peer-group config in the vpnv4 address-family wasn't sufficient enough 
to enable the learning of vpnv4 routes.  Do peer-groups and vpnv4 config 
not mix?  Trying to add the command "neighbor aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd 
send-community extendeded" to any of the routers involved (where 
aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd is a configured member of a peer-group) results in the 
error:

% Invalid command for a peer-group member

To me that implies that some sort of interaction exists between vpnv4 
config and peer-group config.  Can anyone add any input to this?

Thanks
  Justin